SR-406-004 (12),.._.~..~. ,..
~~.r
v J~ ~,tY af Ci~y Council Report
5~anta Manic~t~
City Council Mee#ing: February 27, 20Q7
Agenda Item: ~ ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P, Fogarty, Qirectar of Planning and Cammunity Development
Stabject: Appeal {}6APP-048 af Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness 06CA-417,
a request to construct a rrew single-family home on a nan-contributing
vacant property located withirt the Third Street Neighbarhood Historic
District
Recammended Actian
It is recommended that the City Council grant the appeal, based on revised plans that
h~ave been submitted, and apprave Certificate of Appropriateness OGCA-017.
Executive Summary
This report recomrnends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a propvsed
new single-family home on a 25' x 100' lot located in the Third ~treet Neighborhoad
Historic District {"the District") based on plans that have been revised and improved
since the ~andmaeks Commission's denial of the application. Background is pravided
on the Histaric District's intent and criteria for approval of a new structure in the district,
and the Landmarks Commissian's denial and findings are outlined. The r~port then
analyzes staff's recommendation to approve revised plans submitted in conjunction with
this appeal with significantfy reduced massing, impeoved side elevatians, a more
aesthetic front garage design and strengthened pedestrian connections to the street.
1
Discussion
Backpround
On October 17, 2006, Braden Powell filed a Certificate of Appropriateness applica#ion to
allow construction of a new single-family resider~ce on his property located at 2646
Second Street, a 25' x 100' vacan# lot without alley access included within the
boundaries of the Third Street IVeighborhood Histaric District ("the District"). The
property at 264C 2nd Street is lacated on the west side of 2n~ Street about halfway
~ ~
~ :.~,. ~__. ~
Propased Elevation, shown with existing adjacent structures
Revised plans far a new two-story single-family residence include approximately 2,060
square feet of living space, a 463 square-foot garage and a 355 square-foot roof deck
accessed by a stair enclosure. The proposal complies with the Code-required 15'-0"
front and rear yard setbacks and other applicable standards. Hawever, a variance has
been granted to allow a garage with reduced interior width of 18 feet and reduced side
yard setbacks (2'-6" an the satath side and 3'-~" on the narth side) in order to
accommodate two Code-required covered parking spaces. Two separate waod garage
doors with arched entrances are the daminant frant fea#ure at street level; above the
garage is the master bedroom/home office balcony with #wo French daors, supported by
2
between Qcean Park Boulevard and Hill Street.
woad members. The height o€ the propased residence at i#s highest point is 29'-4'l".
The proposed residence is designed in a Spanish Revival style, which is recognized as
an acceptable style in bath the Ocean Park Design Guidelines and #he Third Street
Neighbarhood Historic District Design Guidelines ("the guidelir~es"}.
Attachment E includes the previous elevatians and rendering, which were presen#ed ta
the ~andmarks Gommission; the revised plans now under consideratian are included in
Attachment D. Significan# plan modifications include:
+ The revised plans reduce the building volume through remaval af the mezzanine
and reduced front roof height. The roof in the frant portion of the house is naw
proposed at 23 feet, rather than 25.5 feet originally proposed, with a hipped roof
that draps to a height of 18.1 feet at the front fa~ade (measurements from
theoretical grade}.
• Increased articulation of the side elevations, particularly the norfih side, including
a slight recess in the upper floor and tiled ledge, a wood windaw element
wrapping around the rear elevation, a chimney on the north elevation, and open
roof deck railing that is set back from the rear edge of the structure.
• The roofline has been refined and given consistency and has been incorparated
inta a lower hipped roaf in the front portion of the struc#ure.
* The wood garage doars are naw surrounded with arched entrances that soften
the averall efFect of the garage. Two windows have been added to the north
garage elevation, adding transparency into the st~ucture.
• The north side gate has been relocated to the rear behind the main entrance
doar on #he north side of the house. An arched wing wall has been added over a
walkway with differer~tiated pavement that extends to the sidewalk. The gate an
the sauth side of the residence has also been slightly recessed with landscaping
in front.
• The revised plans feature a more comprehensive use af Spartish-style
architectural vocabulary.
Third S#reet Historic District Standards & Guidelines
Modifications for both contributing and nan-contributing properties in the Third Street
3
Neighborhood Historic District are guided by criteria that were specifically developed for
the Distric#. When the District was established, its ir-tent was tharaughly documented in
a three-valume application referenced in the Municipal Code ~SMMC 9.3~.290)
describing in detail the neighborhoad's history, architectural character, praposed
baundary alternatives, and the motivation and purpose for establishing this area as a
historic district. Out of three alternatives offered in the application, the Counci!
designated the Qistrict boundaries to include the west side of Second Street in order ta
capture the vacant parcels, including the subject property, to ensure that their future
developrnent woutd be eompa#ible with the neighborhoad scale and character and
wa~ld not continue the late 20th century pattern af incompatible in~ll. The designation
was then followed up with adoptian of Design Guidelines and a Landscape Survey of
significant mature trees. For new construction within #he District, #he Guidelines
suggest the following:
Landmarks Commission Rction
C}n December 11, 20Q6, the l.andmarks Commissian held a public hearing and vated 5-
0 to deny the praject, with one Commissioner having recused himself fram the
discussion. The Cammission based the deniaE on findings thafi the praposed residence
4
was incompatible with the exterior features of other contributing impravements within
the District and would be irtconsistent with the guidelines because the scale, shape and
pedestrian orientatiar~ are out of scale with the prevalent neighbarhood form. Primarily,
the Commission cited three fundamental aspects of the design: the proposed two car
garage, which dominates the front fa~ade of the 25-faot wide lot; the height #hat reaches
aver 29"1 feet aEongside twa low, one-stary bun~alows, one of which is a contributing
struc#ure to the Distriet; and the boxlike massing, which creates a structure that
overwhelms surrounding historic buildings.
Mr. Powell has appealed this decisian citing that the Cc~mmission's denial was based on
the incompatibility of the front fa~ade, which does nat include a front entrance. The
appeal cites his need to comply with the Code requirernent for a two car garage that
was achieved through approval af a variance and states that the Landmarks
Commission's wish for a front entrance is not passible. He further states that there is no
car~ser~sus among members of the 3~d Street Neighborhood Gitizen's Participation
Gommittee {CPC) on a solution for the front design. The full appeal te~ct is contained in
A#tachmen# A.
Appeal Analvsis
S#aff concurs that the proposed structure reviewed by the Landmarks Gammission was
incompatible with the District's intent and its guidelines, based on the mass and bulk of
the proposed structure, but disagrees with their canclusions in regard ta the garage far
reasons expanded an below. The plans submitted and reviewed by the Cammissian
5
were nearly identical ta the applicant's property located at 2712 2"d Street, which was
built recently with Architeetural Review Board approval but which is not within the
District boundaries. In that conte~ct, the design met ARB criteria and was deemed to be
an acceptable develapment within Ocean Park. Nowever, duplicating this development
in the District only a few feet away from a contributing structure did not comply with the
special criteria devefaped for the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District.
Fallawing the ~andmarks Commission's denial and appeal filing, stafF met with the
applicant and his architects to convey cancern~ abo~t the project's scale, and to discuss
possibilities for softening the structure's side elevations, reducing its scale and
averpowering verticality, and enhancing the connection between the street and the mairt
door on the side elevation. The revised proposal submitted for the CounciPs
consideration na longer averwhelms the adjacent praperties, due to the modifications
summarized above, The red line shown on the side elevations (Attachment D)
demonstrates the reduced massing now propased. 4ther than the loss of the
mezzanine, the building's floor area has not been significantly reduced in these plans;
hawever, the overall effect of massing is considerably decreased due to these
madificatians.
In cantrast to the ~andmarks Commission's determination, staff does not object in khis
instance to the proposed two-car garage, particularly as redesigned with the separated
arched garage doarways and a clearly defined and unobstructed pathway connecting to
the front daor. As cited abave, the guidelines state that parking should be in the rear.
6
The use of "should" implies recagnitian that in some cases this cannot be achieved. In
this particular case, staff supports the design because given the lot's narrow dimensions
and the lack of a rear alley, providing parking at the rear of the lot is not feasible. Street
parking on 2"~ Street is highly utilized and the proposed garage is the most practical
way to develop a viable home with adequate, Code-required paricing on this narrow
parcel without alley access.
Given the need ta balance a homeowner's desire (and the Cade requirement} far off-
street parking with the District Design Guideline requiring a"clearly defined main
entrance that is oriented toward the street," the project as redesigned employs an
appropriate solution to connect the home with the street and neighbarhood. The
differentiated pavement and walkway orient the pedestrian toward the front daor, and
the wing wall with arched entry serves as a portal to strengthert that connection. The
wing wall's dawnward slope pravides a transition to the lower height structure to the
north. Newly added windows into the garage provide visUal penetration inta the
structure and the second floor front balcony, which protrudes forward from the garage,
provides an element of living space on the front eleva#ion that connects activity within
the str~cture to the street. In order #o ensure that this walkway remains open in the
future, the proposed conditions of approval specify tha# any gate installed on the north
side of the property to secure access from the s#reet must be located furkher ta the rear
an #he property than the residence's main door.
7
In summary, the appeilant's efforts ta address compatibility issues and the District
guidelines have produced a better, more appropriately scaled proposal with impraved
pedestrian orientation. Findings for the Certifica#e of Appropriateness are included in
Attachment C.
Rlternatives
Rs an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Caur~cil may consider:
1. Denying the Appeal.
2. Rernanding the application to the ~andmarks Commission for reconsideration.
Enviranmental Analvsis
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environrnental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuan# to Sectian 153~3, Class 3 and Section 15331, Class 31 of
the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of the constructiort of a
new single family residence and designed in a manner consistent with #he Secre~ary of
the Interior's ~tandards for the Treatment of Historic Pr~perties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reeons#ructing Historic Buildings {1995),
Weeks and Grimmer.
Public Outreach
As required by the Municipal Code, the Third ~treet Neighborhood Citizen's
Participation Committee {CPC) was notified of the applicatian for and appeal af the
Gertificate of Appropriateness, including notice of all hearings. Additionally, this hearing
8
has been noticed with on-site posting and mailed natice of hearing as required in SMMC
Sub-section 9.40.Q4~{b).
BudqetlFinancial Impacfi
The recommenda#ion presented in this report does nat have any budget or fiiscal impact.
Prepared by: Elizabeth Bar-EI, AIGP, Senior Planner
F~.r:a~calyded to Caur~il:
De ~-
Eileen P.~' ~~i~r~~ky, p~.~r~l~~----~' . amont Ev~
Plannin C mu~evelapment ity Manager
Attachments
A. AppellanYs appeal statement
B. ~.andmarks Commission's Statement af t~fficial Actian
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Findings and Condi#ions
D. Projec# plans and Rendering
E. Previous elevations and rendering presented ta the ~andmarks Gommission
9
ATTACHMENT A
Appellant's Appeal Statement
10
F~i~~~~ s~~r#~ th+~ ~p~cific c~~~c~n(s~ fr~r t~e~ a~p~~t ~~~~ sep~~'~t~ stt~~t j#' n~~~~ry):
1~ t~~ ap~ai rela~d tct fR~ dtrr:r+~tion~ry ~ctior~ ~t~~ fndir~gs ~~~u~d fr~r tl~e prr~p~sed
~roj~~;.t"~ ,,,.,.,,, Yes ~„ ~+lo {f yes, e~cpl~i~t: ~.~_~~~,. ~~',
is tt-~ ap~as~~ rela~~d t~s th~ ~~n~d~t~~n~ ~+f appr+c~+at~' _,,,,, 'Y~- ~~tc~ ~E y~s= ~,rhic~
~rt~~tion~ ~nd v~rhy~
, ...,~., . ~...._~..«.r.,~..w.~.,.,
ts t~ ~pp~~l x~lat~d t~ d~sign i~ u~ ? y~ Y~es ,,,~, l+l;q tf y~s, ~a~pl~ir~: ~~.,
'~,,,:.~-tit;*'4,~~~"~~5 e,~t~~ ~~~. s ~,,."~ -~`~ f ~,i%+~"'~~'"
t~ ~ ~. -
~s i~t+~ ~pp~~l r~l~t ,~~"b~~~'ty f~~ra+~ ~tt~h as ba~ i~lit~g h~ri~t~t, €n~~sin9. P~de~t~riaz~
~rri~r~t~t~», etc.'~ ~~~ Y~ ' No i yes~ xpl~et~: }
.
~~ t r ..~. .....,. ~.~_ '~'~1"~ t~. __,~r''1 ~„~" ~a-~#` 1 ~~-- ~c"~ .f'" ~:..
ts t~t~ a,pp~~I ret~t,~d tv n~n-complianc~ ~sri~~- #~-~ ~nEa 149~r~P~~ ~~n~~~p~i ~c~~~~ ~'„~t Yas
~ t~s~ ~fi ye~~ wh~~h Coct~ 5~ec#i~r~(s~ ~toes th+~ prc~,~~ct n~t ~c~rr~prt~ r~r~#~ ~n~ ~?v~t~r~
t.r• 1 ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ +F+,. ~7,~ r
'~p~e~f t~~1~~~ ta~ ~r~varar~-~~,#a~1 i+rr~p~+~cs a~c~ciate+~ ~rr~h. tf~~ pcgJect'~ ~~'e~
I~ ~~s, e.~cpl~ti~r: ~.,_'
A#~~L~,AN~` ~IC~~tATt~R~,
~I+~T~, ,# ~eat~Fng ~#~t~ vn ~ a~~~~~ wiEl nat t~ e~~h~dt~f+~t!" ur~t~t ~~~!'F~ci~s~t
Infarrc~~tion r~~~rdin~ t~e b~sis #crr #h~ ~p~~~at }~a~ ~t~~t~ re~ei~v~c~ ~.t~ ~rt~t~fi~ Gily
F~lann~ng ~ivi~r~+~n staff tu ~~+~~~rr~ khe requir~r~ an~lys~s ~~r tt~i~ ~~-f~ r~~c~rt.
11
ATTACHMENT B
Landmarks Commission's Statement of C?fficial Action
12
LA~N~A~ARl~~ ~C1MMI~Sit3N
~F '~°H~ I~1T'~" t3~' SANT,~i 1Vlt~htlGA
~TAT~lI~IE~1T C}F QFF[~i1X~L AC~OI+I
PR~3~~~,T
~IIBJCCT: L~-f~6CA-01?
AC~D~~~S; Z~34~ 2"'~ : tre~t
APPLt~GA[xJT: Brade€~ Po~vc~[1
RE+~UC: ~`: Ce~i~c~t~ c~f ~rpropriatene~~ f~r approwal t~f th~ desigrt for ~
~~w ~irtc~le-f~mily r~s~d~nce loc~t+~d on ~ v~+c~nt, nr~n-
ccar~triE~utirr~ par~ei w~tl~irt the TY~ird ~tre~t l~IeigFtbc~r~c~c~d
~ist~a~c C~istrict,
LA~`~I~l'~I~RK~ C~C3A~111~II~~It3I~ AC`~It,~t~
'I ~111It]~+ E~~te
Appr~~r~d b~~~i ~n the f~llo~ving f~ndin~s ~~td ~u~bject #~r the
~crr~c~itiar~s b~fr~w
~C t~~ni~~
~h~r .
~~~~C`i'IV~ [~!A'1`E ~F ~C~"1~t~1
121~2I2~}~6 Certific~t~ t~f Ap~ropri~tmr~~ss L~-t}6~A•U`i 7
C~F~TlFIC~T"~ CJ~ AtPP~C7PF=~lAT~~1~~5 ~Ihlt~it~~a ~~~u'1~t1~ ~.~~.1 ~(}3
1: Th~ ~r~~o~ed new r~:sider~c~ wo~ld be incampatible wi~t~ fh€~ ~~ct~~icrr f~~tur~~ c~f
~t~~r ccantributin~ ~mproV~men€:~ v~ithin th~: Tl~ird vtreet ~`~fieighborho~ ~i~fioric
Distri~t ar~d v+v~ul~l b~ ir~+~t~n~i~t~~t wifih th~: Third ~treet ~lei~hb~rf~~crd D~s~c~n
Gui~~li~+~t~ in th~t the prc~~crs~d ~~I~, sh~~, ar~d ~e~t~~tri,~r~ o~~~r~t~tiran caf th~
resid~nC~ I~ r~~t ~~rr~tl~r t~ ~antnbuttn~t structur~s ir~ xl~e dlst~`ict. 1t~hll~ iher~ ~r~ ~
u~ri~ty vf arc~ite~tural st}~I~s th~t r~pr~s~nt th~ Gi~tricf"~ ~l~v~l~prne~rt thrt~ught~ut
the 1~3Cls, t~te p~'~~I~nt dev~lopm~nt ~y~e c+f ~~n~ribu~ing s~~tur~s in ifi~ C}i~'trict is
prim~~ly th~ C~st'rft~rnia bungalov~r, cJ~~r~cten~ed by ~h~ us~ of front porches, frc~n#
~tep~s, ar~d wir~t~~aws tc~ ~r+avide vi~r~ ~~~ ~~ mer`g~; th~ interior ~nd e~t~~ior
13
~~r~d~~p~~s. The:~ cc~mman feature~ ~t~l~ ~a t~~ th~ v~rit~us propet'tie~ ~f tl~e t~i~tri~
~aget~~r, A,~ c~ r~~u~fi, wf~il~ th~ prc~~c~s~d re~id~nc~ is n~3t r+~quir~d tt~ r~pli~~t~ ~~~
~rev~t~nt ~r~~it~~t~r~l styl~, the residen~ shc~uCd carr~pl~m~r~t th~ ~C~y ~x~'~rior
fe~tu~'~~ saf the exf~~irtg ~~ntri~utinr~ ~~ui4d+rt~s in ~~~ Di~~r~ct.
Th~ c~r~c~nd f~aor fa~~de of th~ ~s~d~n~e i~ ~~~nir~ate~ ~y a~wr~-~~r gara~e tl~~~
~uc~g~~ts t~~ franf y~r~ ~p~c~ i~ intended ~car v~h1~~~~ s~n1y ~n~ t~ter~fc~r~, da~s nr~t
e~han~; ih~ p~c~~~tri~r~ char$ct~r ~rf th~ str~~t. Simil~~`ly, i~~ ~rap~-~~~ ~3tfe
p~tS~~trtar~ ~~~~ ~n~ ~~~~~~1-~~ary ba[~ny dc~es not ~zch[ev~ t~~ n~ighbc~r fri~~t~lly
et~t~°~t~c+~ f~t~ne~~d t~~ th~ t~~id~l~r~~~, kr~ ~ddit~qn, ~h~ ~rc~pc~s~c~ h~i~ht ~~` ti~~
re~i~~n+ce ~xce~ds ~t~~ +~f ~tsrr`cac.tr~diirtg ~r~trlb~,rtirtg ~#ru~ct~r~~ ~,~d ~he box-lik~ #~mt
ct~:~t~~ ~ rn~s~ ~haf +~v~rvu~eims Scsrrcau~r~ing h1~tt~ri~ b~~ild3r~~~. ~l'i~~~ th~
ir~~vr'~-~ration ~afi~rchi#ectur~i ~~t~~ls ~t th~ stre~t Ee~re! ~~~ rttc~r~ bt~~lt~in~ ~r#~c:tal~tic~r~,
~~r~ic:ul~rly pn ~h~: n~rth elevatian, the r~sidc~n~e is [n~mp~#ible with t~~ CC~t~~r~~utir~g
~u~~~iEr~~s ir- fh~ t~tstri~f.
2. T~+~ ~~~ria~ f~atc~r~s c~f tF~~ new r~~id~n~ ~n~f it~ ~alac~rn~nt ar~ kh~ ~r+~~rty wa~ld
ac~v~rs~~y ~ff~ct ~nd be dis~t~rrnc~ni~us~ vvith t~$ ~iStr#ct ~h~r~ct~r, ~~ ~~t ~cart~r ~t~
~e~tic~n 9.~~6.~'~0, ~nd w~f'r tf~~ sc~l~, mat~ri~l~, ~nd rna~~in~ C-f t~~h~r ~or~tt~~iutir~g
~~rur.:t~r~~ w~thin tl~~ ~i~tri~t in th~# th~ ~rc~pc~~c3 fe~tur~~ such ~s th~ ~c~cc~nd-sfol~r
b~lcany ~r~d ~r~rnt-f~~;irtc~ g~r~c~~ dravr t~c~ Ctpt ~~t~cientl~r cr+~t~ com~~til~i[ity with th~
c~ver~[1 ~~~ra~t~t' t~~ th~~ Di~tri~t a~ ~ n~igPtbr~r~fri~r~~ly ~r~~. T~e ma~~~rtg t~fi th~
r~~~~~ncs ~I~c~ nega#ive[y irnp~C#S ~[~e c~v~r~ll ~h~r~cter ~~ 'th~ r~t~lgt~br~r~c~pt~ by
intradt~cir~g ~ bui~dirrt~ for~n t~~t i~ r~c~t ~imi~ar t~ co~tributl~~ ~~rilc~ing~ ~n t~t~ ~~~trict.
11Vhi{e th~ ~~~~~I~nc~ rr~~y ~orr~p~~ ~vith th~ rn~mt~m ~Itow~bl~ buiCc#ing hei~~t fvr the
~F~~-2 ~}i~t~i~t$ t~r~ Thir~~i ~tF~:~:t ~eic~hhanc~a~td D~~~t~n fiuici~?~s~te~ s~~te th~~ t~~~
~t~nstrt,~ctit3r~ ~hau~d, ,~r~~ir~~~it~ ~s~t~a~~ks, t~eightS~ ~nd ~~re~~11 ~t~ilt~ing ~hapes ~h~t
~r~ ~imil~r t~ Sur~t~t,rnd~r~~ +~ntrlbt~t~~~ ~u~fdlr~~~ irt t~r~ ~~~~r~~-~~ ~islt'i~t," The hiq~ly
~esibl+a €~c~rth ~~ev~tion cxf tt1~ ~~~~t~~n~ ha~ ~ ~x-Ilk~ ~pp~~ran~ whi~h I~~~cs
~rt~cu~~tic~n ancE va~i~t~c~n in r~~ss ~nr1 ft~rm. Tl~e ~c~~~ t~~ the pr~pc~~ed r~sid~~t~~
~Isc~ dt~es nC~t ~~prt~pr~~tely ~ddr~.,s th~ rel~tit~nship t~a sin~i~-stor~r ~uc~~r~~ to the
r~~r~l~ ~t~c~ sr~~th c~€ th~ ~~bj~c# prc~p~rtryy.
~cart~t~r~rtt~r~, tt~e prc~pc~s~~ twc~~~~r gar~g~ t~r~ t~~~: gr~~r~~ ~l~rcir f,~~inc~ ti~~ ~tr~~~
~elirr~~~ates fh~ c~p~artunity t+~ create ~~~c~~~tr'i~rt-~`ri~nd~y envfrcanm~rit itt t11e ~rt~r,t
y~rd c~f th~ r~sidence. "t"~~ ~3omin~n~ce ~f vehicl~s ir~ the fror~t y~r~i w~ulcf be
de~`im~n#.~1 iC~ tt~e ~7i~t~ct character and cor~trar~y t~ th~ D1str~ct•C~uid~lin~~ ~s there
ar~ ,~tht~r d~si~n ~Ptem~f~V~S tE~at ff'~~ a~p[~~r~t t~-Ult~ C+~Ctsid~t-whi~ct~ ~nrould ~itaw the
r~s~~~nc~ tc~ c~mp~y w1t~ ~~r~c~r~g r~~~c~m~~t~s ~rt~il~ ~l~~ i~t~vrp~r~tir~~ ~ey ~~~tur~~
Q~ t~r~ ~i~tti~t`~ ~~-~r~~t~r ~u~~ ~~ ~ s~r~ee#-f~acirt~ rn~ir~ erttta~nc~ ~nd ~tr~et-I~:v~l
~r~t~itectur~f de~il~~
'~ 4
c~,~~c~r~s
Thi~ d~r~i~ i~'~~r~ ~n~ prap~c~s~d proj~~t ~t ~~~~ ~~'~ Str~et ~s sh~wn c~n plan~ ci~t~f
t~d~v~mb~r 6, ~C3~1~, wfii~h ~r~ c~r~ file ir- ~~t~ C[#y Flanning D~~rrisic~r~i ~xc~p~ ~s
~rnen~lec~ t~~r~irt~
2. This d~~i~ic~n r~ay b~ ~ppea~ed by prop~rly f~l~~~ with t~e t~lrectc~r of Piar~r~ing anni
~~rr~r~nur~ity C}+~velt~~~'-ent ~ i~c~~~~ of A~peal c~n ~~Qrrr~ furnish~d k~y the ~'la~r-iru~
~nd Gcamrrt~nity D~~~t~m~»#. ~u~h notice ~~t~Ei be ~led w~thin €~ ten ~9 C~3 d~y time
~aerlrac~ ~~amr~t~~i~Itt~ f~~s~rt th~ ~~~~ ~f th~ d~~errn~r~~t~~n.
V~3~"~:
~4tif f~s.~: ~#~'rT~P.~+'a ~~`'~`iSf,.f~'~ T\c"~~:?~~"i~"IF ~..'~~'~71~'f ~ 'v~'~1?,l~"l
~£~~/°,.r: ~€)~$
J~~#~~~~1^#: '~~tiS~T
1~c~.3~3E311~: ~€]Il"1G~1
~~~r~~
1f thl~ t~ ~t flr~~l t~8~[~IC)E'I t~+~?t SG1b~~C~ tt3 furt~l~r ~~a~~I Und~;~ th~ Gl~y ~f ~~t1t~ Moni~a
+~crn~rehen~ive ~ar~t~ 1~~~ an~f ~ar~i~~ C~rdi~l~i~c~, ~1~~ tir~t~'~vi~~in w~iC~t judicial revie~r ~f
fhi~ ~l~ci~iC~n mc~st ~e s~~ght is gr~verr~~~f F~y ~r~de a~'~iv~l F~~c~d~€r~ ~e~#ian 709~t.~i, wt~ic~
pro~isi~n h~s E~c~n adtapt~d ~y t~~ Gfky pur`~u~rat tc~ Municipal C~~ie ~~etican ~~a.
~~h~r~~ay c:~rtify ~h~k t~i~ ~ta~em~r~~ of UfificNaC a4~tic~n ~ccur~~~;ly refi~~s t~~ f~n~l
d~t~r~ntr~~t€c~n ~f t~e L.~-nc~rr~~rks Gar~€trti~~ipr~ c~f th~; C'rty o~" ~~nt~ Mor~tc~,
~ ~ ~"' .~ . ~~~
f~in~ Fr~~~~, Ch er~an Date
15
ATTACHMENT C
Certificate af Apprapriateness Findings and Canditions
1C
CERTIFICATE OF APPRC-PRIATENESS FINDINCS {SMMC 9.4fl.03{}{c))
1. The proposed project is included within the list of work enumerated in SMMC
Section 9.40.020 (d) ~4}.
2. The exterior features of the proposed new improvement on a parcel lacated
within the Third ~treet Neighborhaad Historic District boundaries and its
placement on the property would not adversely affect and wauld not be
disharmonious with the District character as set forth in Section 9.36.290, and
with the scale, materials and massing of the contributing structures within the
Distric# in that the scale, massing, voEume and materials proposed in the
Spanish-style, two-story single-famiiy residence are consistent with the District's
intention that new structures shauld respect the neighborhaod's historic scaCe
and charac#er. To achieve compatibility with the District's character, while
addressing the narrow lot conditian, Cade-required parking and Building Code
requirements, the proposed residence has been scaled down to complement the
District's contributing structures. The 18 foot height at the front wall slopes up to
23 feet in the front portion of the building, and with the exception of the stair
enclosure, the roof height is generally lawer than the maximum allowable in the
OP2 District. Through articulation of the front and side elevations, and
particularly the na~th side elevatian, which is highly visible from Second Street,
the praposed structt~re refates harmoniously to its placement within a historic
district as called for in the District's Design Guidelines, which advise that infill
buildings should "maintain setbacks, heights, and overall building shapes that are
similar to surraunding cantributing buildings in the His#oric Glistrict." Although the
adjacent contributing structure to the south is one story, many cantribu#ing
District structures are two-story homes, and it is appropriate to allow two stories
on this property, provided that the design of the praposed structure does nat
overwhelm nearby cantributing properties or disrupt historic relationships within
the neighborhood of buildings to the public realm and to each other. The
proposed structure, through its design and massing reflects the District character,
is compatible in these respects. Although it is preferable for buildings in the
District to have direct front doar access facing #he street, due to the physical
limitations of this narrow, 25-foot-wide lot and its lack of alley access, the
propased front elevatian, as designed with separated garage doars and arched
surrounds, an overhanging secand floor balcony, and a clearly defined and
unobstructed path and wing wall #o strengthen the connec#ion ta the main
entrance door on #he north elevation, is an apprapriate solution for a new
structure on this particular Qistrict property. Therefore, the prapased project is
consis#ent with the standards and guidelines for the Third Stree# Neighborhood
Historic District.
CONDITIONS
1. Tl~is approval is for the propased project at 264fi 2"d Street as shown on plans
17
dated February 9, 20d7, which are on ~fe in the City Planning Division, except as
amended herein.
2. This Certificate of Appropriateness shall be in full force and effect from and after
the date of the rendering of the decision by the Commission. Pursuant to
Landmarlcs Ordinance Sectian 9.36.'174(h~, this approval shall expire within ane
year if the authorized work is not commenced. Should the applicant be unable to
comply with this restriction, an e~ctensian may be granted pursuant to Section
9.36.250 for an additional 18Q days maxim~m. The applicant must request such
an extensian prior to expiration of this permit. After that time, the applicant will
be required to return ta the Commission for approval. In addition, this Certificate
of Apprapriateness shall expire if the authorized wark is suspended for a 180-day
period after being cornmenced.
3, Wood garage doors shall be used; all ather materiais shall be installed according
to the schedule provided on Sheet 2.3 of the plans dated August 14, 200~. Minor
modifications may be permitted with approval of the Landmarks Commission
Secretary. Prior to approval of building permits, front yard paving and
landscaping plans shall be submitted for approval of the ~andmarks Commission
Secretary.
4. Any gate installed on the north side of the property to secure access fram the
street musfi be located further to the rear on the property than the resider~ce's
main door.
5. All required Plannir-g and Building Permit approvals shall be abtained.
18
^ ^
~ ~ona
aacmens
. .
ava ~ a e o r rev ~ ew
. ,
a e ~ er s
~ce.